I'm sure everyone on SO and the other tech-oriented SE sites is comfortable with "meta" as the label describing the meta sites. But for non-technical sites (like cooking), is this clear enough? I don't think "meta" is a word that "normal" people use all that often.
(Worse yet, on Cooking.SE it almost looks like it says "meat").
Should this be changed to "help" or "support" (or something else) instead?
I agree with the comments by justkt and Downvoter. "meta" is not a technical term, so this is a non-problem. Seasoned Advice does kind of prime the mind for reading "meat" instead of "meta," but I don't think that special case is enough of a problem to justify breaking standardization with the rest of the SE network. It's certainly not enough to justify changing the word across all the sites.
To answer your title question: Yes, we want to call it "meta" for all the sites, regardless of topic.
As the StackExchange network expands outside the boundaries of techinical audience, I think this may become a valid issue. (See my comment to the OP for more details)
While the meta/meat issue on Cooking is an isolated and unfortunate, yet funny, coincidence, I do think we could use a more widely understood word for non-tech SE sites (or all SE sites).
I'm also thinking 'Help' or 'Support' could work.
Update #1: As @David Thornley points out in the comments, 'Help' and 'Support' do not quite say the right thing, which I somewhat agree with. I just don't have any other suggestion myself.
Update #2: How about Shog9's suggestion of 'Feedback'?
It isn't "Help" - that would be resources on how to use the site. It isn't "Support" - that would be how to get in touch with the site's admin people.
"Meta" is not a computer-specific word. It's not a real widespread word, but I don't know of one that would work.
Besides, if they're curious, they can always click on it and see. The Web really does support finding things out by exploration.
I'm not sure I know a alternate choice that has the right semantics.
Added: The more I think about it, the more I feel that "meta" really is the right word. But it is also a word that is recognized by a relatively small subset of the population (and not the educated, but rather those who like to "think about thinking" (to be, well, meta about it)), and used by a smaller group still.
"Help & Support" has been proposed, and that is not bad, but maybe policy & support would be better. I really am worried that "help" is going to bring a lot of people with "How do I make links?" type questions when we would rather that most of them find the formatting help page.
Why would I click on that?. I agree. But this is another issue: Usability. An @alt or @title wouldn't hurt.
Copying my answer from a few comments on https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/new-per-site-metas/
“I think a more accessible term for the wide audiences you’re aiming for would be ‘main site’”
Not a bad idea — “parent” vs. “main”. Some say “meta” is too geeky but I don’t agree with that. I could possibly support “parent” though. I worry though that “meta” and “main” look way too similar as links.
as you move away from more technical sites to the great unwashed of the interwebs, the term ‘meta’ might not be so well understood
I’m ok with doing a tiny bit of education about what meta is, since we have to educate people about how the Q&A format is supposed to work anyway. (or deprogram them from Yahoo! Answers, I guess)
Yes, we do.
Mostly because it's more apt than any of the alternatives suggested here or any others that I can think of.
Is it a descriptions that'll be clear to all users? Nope, although the tech vs. non-tech issue is a red herring, I think. But at least "meta" is highly accurate if you know the term. Unlike, say "feedback," which much of meta is not, and makes me expect to get a pre-addressed email to the team. Or "help", which I'd expect to take me to something more like the FAQs.
The challenge we're facing is that meta is actually the... rightest word (unlike "rightest", which, well... isn't).
On the beta sites, we could potentially put some verbiage on the right where the under-construction-y stuff is, something like, "Have a question ABOUT the site? Visit Meta."
At the end of the day, if the person we're worried about is actually looking for something like meta, and they find the links up top (no one's suggesting they're too well hidden, just that the diction will prevent them from picking the right one), they'll almost certainly wind up at the FAQ. Which will quickly advise them of where they should go if they have a question ABOUT the site.
metais not a technical word